From: John Rego <jrego@jonesday.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:01 PM

To: French, Chuck

Cc: Chin, Conrad; Jeff.McKinney@erametgroup.com; Mulrine, Phil; Bradley Nelson; 

thillier@policynavigation.com; Troy Hillier

Subject: Re: Opacity Data Summary

Attachments: Secondary Furnace Processes Visible Emissions Measurement.xlsx

Chuck: 

It appears that you located additional EMI opacity data since our most recent conference call, including 

the 2013 compliance test data that EMI was preparing to provide at your request. As we discussed on 

the latest call, EMI monitors opacity for 60 minutes during its annual compliance tests, which means 

that each test covers approximately half of the usual tap-to-tap cycle. As a result, when interpreting the 

data EPA should consider that a particular 60-minute test may not capture all secondary emissions 

associated with a given production cycle. The data do, however, illustrate that EMI's semi-batch process 

produces highly variable visual emissions (0% to 75% opacity), both within and across production cycles. 

EPA should also consider both the furnace and the product (SiMn or FeMn) being produced on that 

furnace when comparing one test to another. Accordingly, while EPA has not explained how it intends 

to use the data in its summary, EMI does not believe that simple "Furnace 1" and "Furnace 12" averages 

are necessarily indicative of actual production scenario. Moreover, given the demonstrated variability in 

visual emissions, simple averaging may not be an appropriate method for characterizing various 

conditions across all operating conditions. For example, since roof monitor emissions are a function of 

natural upward drafts, which are in turn significantly affected by ambient weather conditions, 

parameters like temperature, humidity, and wind should also be considered when interpreting the data. 

EMI has not attempted to recalculate the three averages set forth in your table and therefore this 

response should not be deemed agreement with your calculations. EMI would like to understand how 

the averages were calculated and how they might be used in crafting a future compliance standard. 

Attached is a table summarizing the limited opacity data collected internally by EMI in March-April 2013 

during development of the protocol that was proposed, but never approved by EPA for implementation. 

Since EMI used a person in the plant to record the start/stop times for secondary emission processes, 

EMI was able to correlate opacity readings to specific stages in the production cycle. Note also that 

EMI's testing measured at least 30% opacity in each event. (up to a maximum of 50%). 

EMI looks forward to further discussions with EPA regarding how visual emission measurements, historic 

and future, can be used to establish an appropriate compliance standard. 

Thanks, 
John 

John A. Rego 

Partner, Environmental Health & Safety 

JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide

901 Lakeside Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190 

Office +1.216.586.7542

Fax +1.216.579.1212 

jrego@jonesday.com 

From: "French, Chuck" <French.Chuck@epa.gov> 

To: John Rego <jrego@JonesDay.com>, "thillier@policynavigation.com" thillier@policynavigation.com>, 

"Jeff.McKinney@erametgroup.com" <Jeff.McKinney@erametgroup.com>, 

Cc: Troy Hillier <tshillier@gmail.com>, "Chin, Conrad" <Chin.Conrad@epa.gov>, "Mulrine, Phil" 

<Mulrine.Phil@epa.gov>, Bradley Nelson <nelson.brad@ecrweb.com> 

Date: 11/06/2013 04:42 PM 

Subject: Opacity Data Summary

Hi John and Jeff, 

 

 Attached is a summary of Opacity data that we have in our files for the Eramet facility. Please let 

us know if you have any additional opacity data, reports or information regarding Opacity for Eramet 

(that are not reflected in this table) that you would like to send to us, by 11/21/2013. 

 

Thanks. 

 

Chuck 

===================================================================================== 

This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or 

protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from 

your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected. 

=====================================================================================